176x Filetype XLSX File size 0.10 MB Source: www.loc.gov
Global/Community Format Sustainability Factors LC Local/Institutional Factors Each of these factors may have different emphasis or importance depending on the community of practice and content type. Some may not be applicable or essential for every format. Community / To the best of your knowledge, estimate the level of resources at LC available to preserve and manage the format. Content Type Information Notes Sustainability Summary Notes Local Factors Summary Disclosure Adoption Transparency Self-documentation External dependencies Impact of patents Technical protection Staff experience and expertise Software/Hardware/OS Representation/extent in LC Established mechanisms available collections/storage workflow/functionality Preferred: LC has the skills, experience, workflows, tools and Possible responses: systems to manage and preserve What are LC's functionality these formats in current systems Possible responses: Is the format widely Preferred: Meets or - Yes / Ample LC capabilities for this format? with confidence. used, especially in Can the format be Is a file in this format able Is the format free from exceeds benchmarks resources For example: Do staff have Does LC's managed storage Final Designation - Yes Is technical peer institutions? Is analyzed with basic to describe its own Is this format free of patents with terms which If this format *requires* the for all relevant - Maybe / Some LC the software to analyze, systems (such as CTS) have the Acceptable: LC can manage this for RFS: Preferred information about it integrated into content and structure with sustainability factors resources, but not Does LC have expertise with this resources to perform technical format at a basic level of - Maybe the format available multiple toolsets and tools? Is standard embedded metadata? If dependence on might impede long term use of DRM, encryption or optimal format? For example, does LC staff: describe, manage, and Does LC already have a actions for this format such as acquisition, management and or Acceptable Content Type File Encoding (if - No through complete not locked into character encoding applicable, does this particular hardware, use? For example, when other protection mechanisms, Any other mitigating factors to Acceptable: Meets - No / Not aware of participate in standards efforts; format- render this format? Are meaningful number of files in format characterization, Any other mitigating preservation. Better management Format/Wrapper appropriate) and open specific vendor supported? Is lossy format have accessibility operating system, or license terms include is it possible for custodians to consider minimum acceptability any current LC related research and testing; have licenses available to all staff this format in identification and validation; factors to consider? and preservation is within the documentation and implementations? compression or options for ADA software for rendering royalties based on use, maintain future access to across benchmarks or resources proficiency in tools and applications. that need it? Is it approved by collections/managed storage? allow a "viewing copy"/QA by capacity of LC; but it must invest in encryption enforced? or use? costs could be high and content reliably? WCC process? Can it be specifications? Are community user compliance such as unpredictable. does not meet all installed/run on the producing a thumbnail or the developing/acquiring skills, groups available for closed captioning? relevant sustainability networks/domains needed to like? experience, workflows, tools or advice and support? factors. process/view materials? systems to manage and preserve this format to the same degree of confidence/completeness as for a preferred format. http://www.loc.gov/preserv There aren't any built-in Sample: Audio WAV LPCM ation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Preferred Yes / Ample LC resources Yes / Ample LC resources Yes / Ample LC resources Maybe / Some LC resources, but QA tools in CTS Preferred Preferred 000002.shtml not optimal (requires download of file to listen). Maybe - depending on Sample: Still Yes (new ISO spec Maybe - varies with implementation - like Release of upcoming ISO spec (2019 Maybe (some licenses may Maybe - but not customized to Works well as an ingest DNG http://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fddY/fedsd000188.shtml encoding/manufactur Yes Canon CR2. Consider Yes Yes Acceptable Yes / Ample LC resources not be for current versions of Yes Acceptable Acceptable Image available soon) er in RFS adding qualifiers June). Need to update fdd188 Photoshop) LC specs so not using validation format for tech specs
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.